The 2017 General Political discussion thread, Part 2!

[SSGSAD]

Nope, he just praises dictators, hands out secrets to adversaries, and sells arms to oppressive middle eastern monarchies

Well, he wants everybody, to have a "level playing field" .....

 

[ghitch75]

TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!
TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP! TRUMP!

 

[Kutnupe14]

x

 

[Kutnupe14]

That's an intellectually dishonest graphic. Does Gov Brown's ban target individuals?

 

[actaeon277]

That's an intellectually dishonest graphic. Does Gov Brown's ban target individuals?

Did Trump's ban target individuals?

 

[SSGSAD]

1977-1981 AD USMC

1985-2007 INARNG

26 years 11 months and 14 days .....

 

[ghitch75]

That's an intellectually dishonest graphic. Does Gov Brown's ban target individuals?

he is banning PEOPLE from traveling there so yes he is banning individuals.....

 

[Kutnupe14]

he is banning PEOPLE from traveling there so yes he is banning individuals.....

Is Trump banning govt officials from the countries listed in the ban from coming here also?

 

[ghitch75]

Is Trump banning govt officials from the countries listed in the ban from coming here also?

don't know for sure but i would guess so......i would say it covers everyone.....

 

[Kutnupe14]

don't know for sure but i would guess so......i would say it covers everyone.....

I personally would think it wouldn't, but if it does, then Brown is a hypocrite... but like I said, I doubt it covers govt officials.

 

[indiucky]

I personally would think it wouldn't, but if it does, then Brown is a hypocrite... but like I said, I doubt it covers govt officials.

Brown's allows LEO's doing training to still go to those states....Maybe some other Government employees as well doing training....IIRC those are the only exceptions....

 

[jamil]

What in the world would give you any indication that he would do so? He's always been and will always continue to be a very sorry individual. As he said he's President and your not.

This is the EXACT behavior I think is childish and idiotic. Sadly, we can no longer expect more from the highest office in the land. My kids behave better than this.

What would happen if everyone just ignored his tweets. No retweets. No replies. No reporting on them. Just dead silence.

That's how you deal with toddlers who act out for attention. Pay them attention when they do good. And you don't reward them with what they want when the do bad.

You just did.

By accepting it you just condoned it.

This is not true. Not flying off the handle about something you disagree with is not the same as condoning it.

It's beneath the office he holds. Someone seriously needs to throw his phone in a lake.

He's a rich man. He can buy a new one.

 

[actaeon277]

...This is not true. Not flying off the handle about something you disagree with is not the same as condoning it.

...

Some people live in a digital universe.

 

[jamil]

That's an intellectually dishonest graphic. Does Gov Brown's ban target individuals?

Is Trump banning govt officials from the countries listed in the ban from coming here also?

Why is that the thing that makes them different enough to disqualify them as moral equivalents? They are different. And, depending on how you view each, they both are morally corrupt when each viewpoint judges the other. The most common thing I could probably draw between them. People of Brown's world view sees Trump's travel ban as morally corrupt because he thinks it's racist. The other side see's Brown's travel ban as a childish tantrum trying to punish states which he disagrees with ideologically. In that sense they probably are equivalents.

Personally, I'm probably more on the Trumper side here than Brown's. I don't think Trump's travel ban is as bad as the other side thinks it is, bot I'm unsure to suspicious that it will be effective at all. Nevertheless, the highest court had a saner view of Trump's travel ban than the people who agree with Brown.

Brown's travel ban is absolutely idiotic. I'm not sure if Brown is actually sane and it's just political virtue-signaling to the moon beams or if he's really that insane, to say people in his government can't travel to states he doesn't like. Either way, what a ****ing douche!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why is that the thing that makes them different enough to disqualify them as moral equivalents? They are different. And, depending on how you view each, they both are morally corrupt when each viewpoint judges the other. The most common thing I could probably draw between them. People of Brown's world view sees Trump's travel ban as morally corrupt because he thinks it's racist. The other side see's Brown's travel ban as a childish tantrum trying to punish states which he disagrees with ideologically. In that sense they probably are equivalents.

Personally, I'm probably more on the Trumper side here than Brown's. I don't think Trump's travel ban is as bad as the other side thinks it is, bot I'm unsure to suspicious that it will be effective at all. Nevertheless, the highest court had a saner view of Trump's travel ban than the people who agree with Brown.

Brown's travel ban is absolutely idiotic. I'm not sure if Brown is actually sane and it's just political virtue-signaling to the moon beams or if he's really that insane, to say people in his government can't travel to states he doesn't like. Either way, what a ****ing douche!

Given that Brown is the Chief Executive of a state, and I'm a guy dislikes federal overreach, I think Brown's ban it the more in line with spirit of the founders. Brown isn't banning his citizens from doing anything, he's just not allowing his govt to interact with states that he believes discriminates against the ideals of his state. This is California, so I understand, why the conservatives are having a fit, however, I bet many of the people opposing this policy would magically see the logic, if the governor of Texas wouldn't allow his government to interact with a state that opposed oil drilling, had sanctuary cities, or had a restrictive gun policy.

 

[jamil]

Given that Brown is the Chief Executive of a state, and I'm a guy dislikes federal overreach, I think Brown's ban it the more in line with spirit of the founders. Brown isn't banning his citizens from doing anything, he's just not allowing his govt to interact with states that he believes discriminates against the ideals of his state. This is California, so I understand, why the conservatives are having a fit, however, I bet many of the people opposing this policy would magically see the logic, if the governor of Texas wouldn't allow his government to interact with a state that opposed oil drilling, had sanctuary cities, or had a restrictive gun policy.

I can rationalize Trump's ban too. This really isn't an issue of constitutionality. I prefer a federal system too. If states want to elect insane governors, well, that's their business. But what we're talking about here is morality. That's the value which both sides are pinning against the other. So let's talk about it on moral grounds. I guess each state could be childish and just decide not to play with the other kids they don't like. That's probably next. Maybe Indiana shouldn't do business with California because they won't accept as a right of citizens to keep and bear arms. At some point, states need to recognize other state's rights to have different moral priorities and not behave childishly like California is doing. Texas is every bit as wrong to act like a child as California. But on the issue of sanctuary cities that is clearly in the constitutional purview of the federal government. It's not Texas's business to punish other states for that. But the Federal government has the authority to regulate it.

 

[actaeon277]

Given that Brown is the Chief Executive of a state, and I'm a guy dislikes federal overreach, I think Brown's ban it the more in line with spirit of the founders. Brown isn't banning his citizens from doing anything, he's just not allowing his govt to interact with states that he believes discriminates against the ideals of his state. This is California, so I understand, why the conservatives are having a fit, however, I bet many of the people opposing this policy would magically see the logic, if the governor of Texas wouldn't allow his government to interact with a state that opposed oil drilling, had sanctuary cities, or had a restrictive gun policy.

Where is his ban on California Officials from traveling to countries that execute homosexuals then?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Where is his ban on California Officials from traveling to countries that execute homosexuals then?

For instance? Sure you could have a policy like that, but why. It's akin to having a policy that bans rocks from Pluto. In other words, you don't apply policies/laws for thing that don't happen.

 

[actaeon277]

For instance? Sure you could have a policy like that, but why. It's akin to having a policy that bans rocks from Pluto. In other words, you don't apply policies/laws for thing that don't happen.

Many some middle eastern countries have executed people for being homosexual. Yet I don't see him banning his officials from going there.
Just to states that don't share his views, yet don't execute people for them.

 

[actaeon277]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-punished-by-death-2/?utm_term=.6a52ef0d010f

Only in Israel: Gay rights in the Middle East - The Commentator

Gay Life – and Death – in the Arab World

https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Execution_of_two_gay_teens_in_Iran_spurs_controversy

BBC News | MIDDLE EAST | Saudis execute three for homosexual acts